For me, there are three factors. First, it's the lacks of subtleness. Today's movies and entertainment are very heavy handed in their messages, and trying to be "artsy", whether it's politics or human rights about racism, gay issues (more for like tv series, though) or bladabladabla like that. You can see it clearly in QOS, when M talking about the need for government to be dirty when we want to see how Bond and Montes survived the long fall. Compare like, Avatar to Robocop, where Avatar's green aeosop is so obvious and one-handed, contrast with Robocop where the satire are only come from the tv shows inside it that could be taken as a joke instead. Also, you can see some long take scenes from Skyfall, which usually done to impress people while being artistic.Second, the darker and edgier trend combined with attempt to be artsy.

With movies like Nolan Batman's trilogy, people are going on the way for 'edgy' entertainments again, this time with moving pictures. Things like Spiderman and Superman are made to become edgier and more serious. Like most anti-hero characters, they have problems in plot consistency, and more or less responsible for the first factor. You can see it clearly on Craig's Bonds, where they wrote things like dumping Mathis to dumpster instead of an intriguing or at least semi coherent story. Superman and Spiderman are clearly hurt by it, since they are supposed to be the virtue of goodness, and yet they done questionable things in their recent movies, and plenty of things done by their supporting characters are also quiet out of characters considering the plot developments alone. Even Dark Knight Saga has plenty of inconsistency regarding the realism that, for me, hurt the movie's plot points that otherwise great in plenty of time (like Batman survived long fall, Twice in Dark Knight without any broken bone, even when he wrecked the van that he intend to stop. Did Craig and Mrs. Brocolli got the idea to copying Batman's super-ability to survive death fall over and over again from there? Or better, Joker himself. His plans in hindsight required him to be extremely lucky while hoping everyone out there became idiots for a minute, like his escape from the police station). In summary, darker and edgier + attempt to make "art" are not necessarily good story, or at least a coherent one, and yet the trend keep going on and on.

Third, the ADD editing, which i blame on Blaire Witch, and Bourne Movies. Quick cuts, shaking camera, point of view jumping around all over the places... This's annoying, since plenty normal scenes like talking are also done like this. I can't fully enjoy movies like The Raid (especially the two. Even worse than Bourne, even with the choreography justified it) since the action got cutted and jumping all over from start to the finish. Even more, this is ironic, since movies today are longer than classic ones (when the last time an action movie as short as Commando come to Cinema?) and the technique is used to justify the length (and poor choreograpy for some), and yet it actually made people even more uncomfortable in watching it? Again, also come to full fruition in Quantum of Solasiban (Man, this movie does sucks in every way imaginable). Also, i'm surprised that no one mocked this trend on any kind of comedy.So, yeah. That's my problems. Sorry for being too long. What about yours?

Three words: Save the Cat. If you're not familiar with this book, it has become something of a "bible" in modern Hollywood. It sets out an extremely prescriptive formula for what a screenplay is supposed to look like, and threatens dire commercial consequences if the formula is deviated from. Result: every movie ends up being the same.

Yeah, movies today are pretty generic. If it's not brooding and edgy, it's being cool as hell shamelessly. And the structure and themes are quiet similar at times, as well. Of course, back then they also always copying here and there, but the originality's noticable. It has the charm on it's own. And it seems that the book also created the issues i had with today's movies. I tried to write a novel (still not finished) while being not objected to anything aside my moral and my own rules, and the result is rather fantastic. I feel very proud of it, and some people who read some of it reacted positively. I think being creative while only objected to looser rules are better than following all the formula.Also, i really laughing out loud after reading the writer's scripts: Stop! Or my mother will shoot! and Bank Check. Really? He wrote two bad script about family comedy,and somehow no one questioned his legitness? Man, executives and art students are more moronic than i thought.

Kristatos wrote:Three words: Save the Cat. If you're not familiar with this book, it has become something of a "bible" in modern Hollywood. It sets out an extremely prescriptive formula for what a screenplay is supposed to look like, and threatens dire commercial consequences if the formula is deviated from. Result: every movie ends up being the same.

This

And they are hung up on remakes. The only new original ideas come from book series.